Link
washingtonpost.com
Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.
For the first time, the government will offer financial incentives to lenders that cut the principal these homeowners owe on primary mortgages.
The new initiatives are expected to take effect over the next half year and will be funded out of money remaining in the $700 billion bailout program for the financial sector, administration officials said. They said no new taxpayer funds would be needed.
snip
The announcement comes as the administration faces increasing pressure from lawmakers and housing advocates to overhaul its foreclosure prevention efforts. So far, fewer than 200,000 borrowers have received permanent loan modifications under its $75 billion marquee program, known as Making Home Affordable. And the Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program has raised concerns that many borrowers may redefault even after receiving relief under the program.
In the meantime, there is a growing backlog of distressed borrowers awaiting help from their lender and threatening to hamper efforts to stabilize the housing market. The "program will not be a long-term success if large amounts of borrowers simply redefault and end up facing foreclosure anyway," the inspector general said in a report released earlier this week.
cont
Link
washingtonpost.com
Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.
Of course he does, it's right there in the Constitution.Link
washingtonpost.com
Does the President of the USA have the power and the right to legally make this happen.
I ask because I have no idea as to the extent of his powers.
He did.I believe you are supposed to use the title of the article for the thread title when posting in the Breaking News forum. In this case, it would be:
"Obama readies steps to fight foreclosures, particularly for unemployed"
rather than the transparently partisan one you used.
I am sorry but if one single taxpayer dollars goes to out the tons of people that bought houses that were way above there income level than this is very wrong. We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place. They should have to sell the house and get something they can afford. Fact of life is that not every one in the US can own thier own home. If you want to own a house or a bigger house than you should get a better job not have the Gov. bribe banks to give you lower payments. This everyone should own a home thinking is a big part of the reason that we are in the mess we are in.
I am sorry but if one single taxpayer dollars goes to out the tons of people that bought houses that were way above there income level than this is very wrong. We should not be rewarding bad behavior by letting people keep the houses that they should have never got in the first place. They should have to sell the house and get something they can afford. Fact of life is that not every one in the US can own thier own home. If you want to own a house or a bigger house than you should get a better job not have the Gov. bribe banks to give you lower payments. This everyone should own a home thinking is a big part of the reason that we are in the mess we are in.
It's a free country. You can choose to be ignorant if you desire. I know I'm right and just thought I'd share the wealth.I don't believe you.
Except for the first line, which is almost word for word the same (the big difference being "required" instead of "ordered.":dohIt sounds like BS, since the article doesn't even remotely fit the supposed former title.
Where's that money going to come from?
he's making it worse
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-03-24-1Aunderwater25_CV_N.htmDicristo is in growing company. About 24% of all residential properties with mortgages had negative equity at the end of 2009, according to First American CoreLogic. That's up from 10.7 million and 23% at the end of September.
Dicristo can't sell her home and move, but she may be forced to leave. She no longer can afford the payments on her home and expects to be foreclosed upon.
She's living on Social Security and unemployment and drawing $800 a month from her $200,000 retirement account, but she says she has no choice but to walk away from her current home.
Her credit score had been close to a sterling 800, reflecting the type of borrower many banks would lend to at low interest rates. Because she's been unable to make her mortgage payments, she believes her credit score has sunk to about 500, a score that would make it difficult for her to get a home loan.
Dicristo's state, California, is among the top five states where negative equity is most concentrated. But it's not in the lead. Nevada had the highest percentage of negative equity with 70% of its mortgaged properties underwater, followed by Arizona at 51%, Florida with 48%, Michigan with 39%. California came in at 35%, according to First American CoreLogic.
"It's a great idea. It's quite encouraging," says Mark Zandi, with Moody's Economy.com. "It's a very strong incentive for borrowers to remain current. If this can be broadened to more (mortgage) servicers, it could make a significant difference. This is the first real principal write-down plan that has a shot at making a difference. It's very creative."
By all means, we want to encourage homeowners to continue IN THEIR HOMES. Our economy cannot handle another glut of foreclosures because homeowners are in underwater mortgages...and a lot are.
we've been absorbing for a year and the problem is GROWING
is he gonna blame all THAT on the weather?
LOL!
his HAMP was a DUD!
more than half those he helped were, most unhappily, unhelpable
it's horrific
he's making it worse
It's arguments like that which force us to live with unsustainable development that we have today instead of more cost-effective denser living.
It's arguments like that which force us to live with unsustainable development that we have today instead of more cost-effective denser living.
As I mentioned in another thread, we've made the decision at my company to reduce staff by 15 percent on top of the 25 percent reductions of last summer.
Oh I see, so whenever things get bad, the Government should be there to save us, because after all, it's just not right when **** happens...If you would have read even the actual title for the article, you would know:
If you would have read a few articles about Republican philosophy in the last, oh 7 years, you would have heard the slogan "ownership society" where they were encouraging, among other things, home ownership.
- That the assistance would be for the unemployed. Therefore:
- That the people being talked about probably can afford the house they are in once the economy generates enough jobs for everyone. And:
- That they probably can't buy another house right now, or even rent an apartment. Some of these people might end up homeless. How's about they live on the corner at the end of your street, eh?
Home ownership for the many is hugely beneficial to society. The way it was to have gone about may have contributed a miniscule amount to the financial crisis, unfortunately. But, it isn't "the reason" that we're in the mess we are in today.
Oh I see, so whenever things get bad, the Government should be there to save us, because after all, it's just not right when **** happens...
"Hey can't pay your bills? Uncle Obama has plenty from his stash.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?